from Nicolaas Mansvelt, in South African Republic as Superintendent of Education.

from the Municipal Council of Oudtshoorn, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

a similar petition from inhabitants of Bethulie, Orange Free State.

from G. E. Woutersen, widow of P. Woutersen, Civil Servant.

from J. A. R. Maclean, widow of Major R. Maclean, East London.

from inhabitants of Middelburg, Transvaal, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from A. E. Caplen, a pensioner, inmate of the Somerset Hospital.

—for Mr. Langerman, from the Chamber of Commerce, Krugersdorp, praying that further immigration of Asiatics be stopped.

from Josephine Wagner, clerk in the Forest Department.

—for Mr. Langerman, from residents of Krugersdorp, praying that further Asiatic immigration be stopped.

from W. Wippenaar, cleaner, Houses of Parliament.

from W. Oscar, late carpenter, Salt River Railway Works.

from W. D. Janee van Rensburg, Posts and Telegraphs Department.

from E. K. Green and Co., Ltd., praying for refund of £690 18s. alleged to have been overpaid income tax.

from H. J. G. Branscombe, Railway Department.

brought up the report of the Examiners on the petition for leave to introduce the Bill, reporting specially that the reason for the presentation of the petition after the thirtieth day of the session is that the agreement which forms a schedule to the Bill was not concluded until after the thirtieth day had elapsed.

On the motion of Mr. J. W. JAGGER (Cape Town, Central), indulgence was granted accordingly.

Papers since the beginning of 1904 bearing on the question whether daily-paid railway employees shall be admitted to the fixed establishment, and number of daily-paid railway men admitted to the fixed establishment since 1904; Regulations of Railway Board; Instructions framed by Railway Board under the South Africa Act, 1909.

asked the Treasurer if he could make any communication in regard to the Estimates of Expenditure, and also the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General as to the expenditure of the various Provinces prior to May 31 last. Perhaps the Treasurer would also inform them what was the course of procedure he intended to follow.

replied that the Estimates of Expenditure were at present in the hands of the printers. He was pressing forward the printing as rapidly as possible, and he was told that they might expect to have the Estimates ready about the end of next week. As soon as they were ready they would be placed on the table. With regard to the Appropriation Accounts of the four Provinces up to May 31, 1910, he had been in communication with the Controller and Auditor-General, and he understood that the report on the accounts of the Orange Free State would be in his (Mr. Hull’s) hands to-morrow. The reports as to the other three Provinces would, he understood, not be ready until about the end of the present month. They were at present in the hands of the printers. As to the concluding part of his hon. friend’s question, in regard to whether he would indicate what their financial programme was, he must ask his hon. friend to wait and see later on when the Budget statement was delivered.

said that the Minister of Finance seemed to have misunderstood him. He was not asking what the Government’s financial programme was, but they would like some indication in regard to when they might expect the Budget statement to be delivered.

said that there would be no undue delay in making the Budget statement after the Estimates had been placed on the table. He understood that a section was to be sent to the Public Accounts Committee, and he did not think it would be quite convenient to make his Budget statement until the Public Accounts Committee had had an opportunity of considering the Estimates.

said that they were not so anxious to get hold of the Auditor-General’s reports in regard to the finance accounts of the four Provinces as they were to get hold of the figures themselves.

said that he would like to hear from the Government what was the course of business proposed. At present they were threatened with evening sittings from now onwards. He could not believe that at this early part of the session it was necessary to sit both afternoon and evening. (Cries of “Hear, hear.”)

It is not the intention to sit of an evening during the present week. (A laugh.) At the beginning of next week the Government will consult the House, and make proposals as to future sittings.

moved certain verbal alterations in the Dutch copy of the Bill.

The clause as amended was agreed to

On clause 4, High Commissioner not to be engaged in other employment,

said that the clause seemed to be rather wide. Supposing a man were a partner in a business in South Africa, would this clause necessitate his retirement from the partnership on becoming High Commissioner?

I think so, and I think it is a very wise provision. I consider that such an officer ought to be entirely free from outside concerns.

said that it was only a nominal safeguard. A man, for instance, might hold shares in a concern.

The clause would not prevent him from holding shares in a business, but it would prevent him from being a director or an agent.

said that there was a similar provision in the Commonwealth Act.

There is no penalty in this clause.

We have an effective one—dismissal.

said that the official could be dismissed or kept on notwithstanding the clause. They should say that in the clause.

On clause 5,

moved that the words after law, “for the time being in force in the Union,” be deleted.

This was agreed to.

moved a new clause 5 to the effect that wherever the words Crown Agent, or Crown Agents for the Colonies, or Agent-General occurred in any measure, these shall be construed to mean the High Commissioner.

Agreed to.

The Bill was reported with amendments.

moved a new clause 3, to provide that the pension granted to a judge should not exceed £1,200 per annum. He said the amendment did not apply to any person at present holding office, but to future appointments. He said he appreciated that it was the duty of the State to provide for adequate pensions for all its servants. A Cabinet Minister was entitled to a grant of £1,200 a year, and he thought that this sum, was an adequate pension for a Judge He feared that they were starting on a very extravagant scale of expenditure, and that if they proceeded on the present lines they would pile up a pension list to meet which the people would have to be heavily taxed.

said that some members took quite the contrary view to that of the hon. member for Three Rivers, and thought that the pensions provided for the Judges were not sufficient. Personally, he thought the pensions stipulated in the Bill were sufficient, but he certainly did not think they were anything more than sufficient. One of the main attractions of the Bench to eminent barristers was undoubtedly the fact that, if late in life, the holder of a Judgeship was unable, by force of bodily infirmity, to continue in his position, he would then have a pension provided for him by the State which would be sufficient to enable him to maintain the standard of living to which he had been accustomed. Without that attraction, many good men might be kept off the Bench. A man at the bar was at perfect liberty to adopt any standard of living he desired, but that was not the case in regard to a Judge, and it was their duty so to provide for a Judge that, after years of service, he could maintain the standard to which he had been accustomed. It was important also to consider for how many years a Judge would require a pension. A Judge could not retire before he was 65 years of age, and on an average, a Judge retiring at that age would not live beyond 60 years. Then few Judges in full health would retire at 65, and those who retired voluntarily at that age, with less than 10 years’ service, would not be entitled to a pension. The ordinary Judge would get £2,250 a year while on the Bench. Barristers made from two to four times as much as that. He thought the House, if it adapted the amendment, would do something that materially would affect both the efficiency and status of the Judges.

asked if there were any reason why in this country Judges should have pensions equal to the salaries paid to Judges in the richest countries in the world? (Cheers.) Not at all. We would very soon have to take the whole question of pensions into consideration. (Cheers.) We had a pension list closely approaching half a million. It was an enormous burden. The House could not interfere with vested interests, but he understood that the amendment did not do that. It was a good thing to limit pensions for all classes of Civil Servants. (Cheers.) Did a South African Judge have anything like the important and arduous duties that an Indian Judge had to perform? Certainly not. Yet the latter was content with a comparatively moderate pension. An Indian Civil Servant had to pay extraordinarily heavy insurances, and front his very position had to spend the greater part of his substance in entertainment, which the South African Judges had not to do. The Indian Civil Servant retired, after forty years’ service, with a thousand a year pension and a K.C.M.G. (Laughter.) He had hoped they were going to have an end of this talk of people entering the public service merely for what they could make out of it. They could not shut their eyes to the salaries of Judges altogether, but he thought it was rather a grovelling view to take of the matter. The Chief Justice of the United States got £2,000 a year Were they going to be told that the United States was not as rich a country as this was? If there was any doubt on the subject, he would recommend the Minister of Justice to have a committee, where evidence could be taken. It would, concluded Mr. Merriman, be necessary for us to limit our pensions, otherwise the country would break down under the burden we all had to carry on our shoulders. (Cheers.)

said that if there was any force in the argument of the Minister of Justice, we should continue to pay pensions as large as salaries. He thought the committee should express in the most forcible way possible to Government its determination to have economy as far as possible—(cheers)—for the way in which the salary and pension list had been growing was perfectly alarming.

said it was very easy to express a determination to have economy, but he was very sorry that much of the expense we were being put to to-day was the result of decisions for which the hon. member who had just spoken was partly responsible. (Laughter.) The Cape Colony’s pension list was a large one he believed it was over a quarter of a million. He was very much surprised that his hon. friend to his right (Mr. Merriman) and his (the speaker’s) colleague in front of him (Mr. Sauer), who now applauded economy very much, should all these years have allowed these pensions to be increased something like £500,000.

The more reason for stopping it.

said he was the more surprised, because the basis of the pension was that adopted in the Cape Colony. Evidently Cape lines did not pay to-day. (Laughter.) It was very easy to say what an Indian Judge got, but no mention was made of the other privileges he had. (Hear, hear.) Then what did the English Judges get? The same attainments and legal knowledge was required by South African as by English Judges. The South African Bench held the same position in the estimation of its public as that held by the English Bench in the estimation of its public. (Hear, hear.) That status was worth to the people much more than anything that could be saved by a paring down of Judges’ pensions.

said he totally disagreed with his hon. friend if he (General Hertzog) thought a Judge was to be tempted by a high salary, and that the status of a Judge depended on the pay he got. What sort of pay did John Marshall, the Chief Justice of the United States, get? The salaries of American Judges were small compared with the gigantic wealth of the United States. In the number of our Judges we compared not unfavourably with England—a country of 42 millions of people and of surprising wealth. If they meant anything at all, if they were going to look after the interests of those who sent them there, they must put their foot down in this matter of pensions. (Hear, hear.) He should like his hon. friend to read Bentham on the great fee-gathering system—the enormous way in which those fees had grown up, and the way in which the House of Commons was dominated by these people.

said it seemed to him that they had made provision in the Bill, so that a Judge on retiring received more by way of pension than he did while sitting on the bench.

said that he thought he was listening to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Merriman) of 26 years ago. Twenty-six years ago he heard the same old thing— the wickedness of the poor Judges, the monstrous salaries they drew, and the exorbitant pensions that they had. When he first came into the House, he thought what a fine thing it must be to be a Judge. He had changed his opinion. He believed that the Judges were by no means properly paid, and one of the few inducements by which they could get men at the bar to go on the bench was to hold out a pension.

warmly retorted that his hon. friend (Sir H. H. Juta) had done him a great injustice when he said that he had often and often pointed to the salaries of the Judges. They were not arguing about the salaries of judges now. Why did the hon. gentleman confuse the two? They were arguing about pensions. An admiral of the fleet in England, after serving his country 40 or 50 years, and being exposed to all kinds of danger, was content to retire on a pension of £800 a year, while they were told that they were doing a niggardly and disgraceful thing by giving their Judges £1,200 a year.

rejoined that he had not confused the two things. Half his hon. friend’s statements related to salaries.

said that they had not had one single solid argument from the Minister of Justice in favour of his own proposal. He thought that in a country such as this, where the mass of the people were poor, it was a preposterous thing to give a higher pension than £1,200 a year.

said he was in favour of paying a man well for his work, but he should save up part of his salary for his old age. If high pensions were given, officials would make it a rule to spend all they were getting. Farmers had to work from early morning till late at night. How, then, could they hake the poor, hardworking man’s money in order to swell the salaries of heavily-paid officials? Many people had not enough to live on, and he did not see his way to vote for the clause as printed.

said that the Minister of Justice had argued that officials should be enabled to continue living in luxury exactly as they were used to do. What about the taxpayer who was used to his income of, say, £600 a year, but who would be obliged to give up about one-fifth of that in order to enable the Treasury to pay these high pensions? Did not the Minister consider it desirable that those people should likewise continue to enjoy the luxury to which they were accustomed? He thought the argument would cut both ways.

asked whether Judges contributed to the Pension Fund?

replied in the negative.

asked what 1-30th of a salary of, say, £4,000 a year amounted to? (Laughter.)

said that the minimum pension would be half a year’s salary, to which l-30th would be added for every year of service over and above ten, two-thirds of the salary to be the maximum. With regard to the objections in general, he would only say that he had uttered his own convictions. It appeared that many members were of a different opinion, but he would put it to the mover of the amendment that the present Judges would not be affected by it in any case. (Hear, hear.) Further than that, a Judge drawing a salary of £2,400 would, immediately on resigning, provided he had ten years’ service, receive £1,200, whereas a Judge drawing the same salary, but with 25 years of service to his credit, would get no more. That was manifestly unfair, and he could not possibly accept such an amendment. He would, however, meet hon. members as far as possible, and was anxious to arrive at an equitable settlement. For that reason he would move to report progress in order that he might meet some of the hon. members who had objected to the clause, and consider the matter, lest something were done which might be regretted in the future. The amendment was an unfair one, but, on the other hand, he did not wish to fix the pensions at too high a figure.

Progress was reported, and leave granted to sit again on Monday.

in moving the second reading, said that the Prime Minister had asked him to take charge of the Bill during the right hon. gentleman’s absence. It was, in the first place, a consolidating Bill. The provisions of the Bill with regard to plant diseases had already existed in the different Provinces since 1905, and in so far there was no change, but inter-provincial restrictions, as such, had been abolished. In future, the only distinction to be made would be between infected areas and clean areas, without regard to boundaries, except as against the countries outside the Union. The first chapter dealt with insect pests and with nurseries. The latter did not include private orchards, the definition only including establishments which sold trees, etc., as a business. Nurseries would have to be registered, and the Government would inspect them from time to time so as to ensure that they were clean. Some plants could not be imported from oversea at all; some could only be imported by the Government, and all others could only be imported under permits. In the past people had imported diseases with the best of intentions, the fighting of which had cost thousands of pounds, and they could not be too careful in the future. (Cheers.) The second chapter dealt with locusts, and followed the Free State Ordinance of 1907. Natal, too, had similar legislation. In the Transvaal and the Cape there had been no laws, but they had had regulations, under which the Governments did their best to exterminate the insects. From time to time inter-Colonial locust conferences were held in order to get uniformity as to regulations, which was necessary in view of the migratory nature of the insects. The Cape had got on so well during the past three years that practically there was no difficulty left in that Province. Inspectors had been appointed, poison was given out, and green stuff had been thrown in front of the voetgangers. In that way extermination was a simple matter, and the Bill only laid down what was being done voluntarily at present. The Transvaal was one of the first colonies to insist on extermination. The third chapter dealt with bees and honey. Bee-keeping was an important industry, though only in its infancy in this country. In the Southern and South-western districts of the Cape a large amount of capital had already been invested in it. In America there was a disease which simply decimated the hives, and stringent measures against its introduction had to be taken. The fourth chapter was of a general nature. In the circumstances, he trusted no serious objection against the Bill would be raised. The Government would be prepared to consider reasonable amendments if individual clauses were objected to.

welcomed the Bill, but considered clauses 16 and 18, concerning locusts, inadequate, in that they did not deal with the case of companies owning a number of farms such as, for instance, in the Northern Transvaal. Many of them were unoccupied, but even of the inhabited portion 95 per cent. was occupied by natives. The natives were not able to comply with the provision about written notice to the police; were they to go to Johannesburg and notify the owners? The position was an impossible one, and it was plain that an obligation had been imposed on the farmers which did not rest on chose companies. Agents collected the rent due by the natives, but they did not concern themselves with locusts, and in those remote districts the insects would be allowed to breed without anything being done.

also welcomed the Bill, but feared that the horse had disappeared long before the stable-door was locked. The whole country was suffering from plant diseases and other pests. In 1909 he had drawn attention to the imminent danger regarding disease among bees. It was evident that the Minister of Agriculture knew little about the true inwardness of locust destruction, seeing that he had called it an easy matter. To report was easy enough, but one did not always know whether eggs had been laid. He had never seen a more radical measure than the one contained in clause 20, stipulating that unless farmers destroyed voetgangers, the State would do so at their expense. Sometimes voetgangers formed an army forty miles long. Farmers in his constituency could not possibly carry out such a law. It was too bad altogether, and he had to raise his voice in protest in order that the Government might be convinced of the impracticability of such a measure. In his constituency there were farms of 30,000 morgen, and it was very easy for theorists to talk about what should be done. Opposition to measures of that kind was always stigmatised as retrogressive, but he would oppose the clause just the same. He had no objection to it, provided the Government supplied the poison and the green stuff (which the Minister said should be given to the voetgangers to eat), together with the requisite number of people to fight the pests. He had known a period of fourteen years without any visitation, yet one fine morning the country was covered with locusts. That showed it was impossible to hold farmers responsible. If anything of the sort were attempted, the Minister might just as well turn out all farmers in the thinly inhabited districts at once, and take ever on behalf of the Government. If the Government did the work at the owner’s expense, many people would be ruined, because the cost of Government work was notoriously high, especially at a great distance from the railway line.

said the Minister had based his expectations regarding the reception the Bill was going to have on the fact that part of it had existed in the Free State since 1907. He (the speaker) would point out, however, that the population of the Free State had had serious objections to the law in question. They contended that it was in the interest of the State that locusts should be exterminated, and that the State should therefore contribute towards the expense. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that in committee an amendment to that effect would be introduced.

said that what the hon. member for Prieska had said was largely correct. Clauses 16 to 18 would not do unless the Minister would accept certain amendments. The Government itself did not see their way clear to accomplish what clause 17 made obligatory for the farmer, for it said that the department “might” (not “should”) take certain steps. The “owner,” however, was obliged to take steps, so that the objection of the hon. member for Waterberg fell to the ground. The distinction was an unfair one. As a nation, they were nowise responsible for the Free State Act of 1907, because it was the offspring of Crown Colony Administration, and they had to bear it whether they liked it or not. In some parts of the Free State they had succeeded in exterminating the locust, but they had also exterminated the farmer. In the Southern districts, they had poisoned the locusts and poisoned the cattle at the same time, but there was no compensation for the unfortunate farmer. Owners had to be protected to a certain extent—not left to the tender mercies of the department.

said that in Natal the law extended to orchards, but orchards were left out of the Bill. Natal had found it necessary to have powers to deal with orchards which were infected through the negligence of the owner. He hoped the Minister would strengthen the Bill as it passed through, and come to the standard that prevailed in the Natal Act of 1904. He gathered from the speeches of hon. members opposite that their opposition to the Bill was mainly in reference to the chapter relating to the destruction of locusts. If that were so, he was sorry to hear it. In Natal they had devoted a great deal of time and energy and money to the destruction of locusts. The result was that last season they had no locusts in Natal. From his experience of the administration of an even more stringent law in Natal, he could say that they had had very little friction. It would, he thought, be a lamentable thing so far as South Africa was concerned if that portion of the Bill were to be excised. In Natal they had had the co-operation of the natives. He hoped that, whatever was done in regard to the rest of South Africa, the present law in Natal would not be weakened.

said that he was in full accord with this Bill. There appeared, however, to have been some misunderstanding. Hon. members on that side were not averse to the extermination of locusts. There was, however, something very objectionable in connection with the extermination of locusts, and that was that the expenses in connection with it did not rest equally on the whole of the country. The farmers might reasonably be called upon to report, but the work of extermination should be carried out at the expense of the Government, because the locusts always came from the big reservoir in the West. In his district some years ago 6,000 square miles were covered with locusts.

said he thought this Bill was a step in the right direction so far as the other chapters were concerned, and he was going to give it his support, but knowing as he did the conditions which prevailed in the northern parts of this country, he could not give his entire support to the provisions of the second chapter. He believed that every farmer in South Africa was willing to assist in the extermination of locusts, but if they were going to make compulsory measures of that kind, forcing him to destroy locusts at his own expense, they were doing an enormous injustice. The first part providing that the farmer should report to the nearest police station seemed to be quite fair and reasonable, but the rest of the work should be carried out at the expense of the State. The locusts always moved from West to East, and apart from that locust eggs retained their vitality for seven years. Consequently it was premature for people to say that they had exterminated them, simply because they had not seen any for four years.

said he thought that his hon. friend’s remarks had really been arguments in favour of this chapter of the Bill. He (the hon. member) knew the eggs were in the district; he knew that after two years there would be a rod in pickle for the farmers, and still he objected to legislation that had been framed to deal with the matter. After hearing the speeches that had been made he imagined himself back in the old Cape House of Assembly in 1894, when a Bill was introduced for the eradication of scab, but which was watered down to such an extent as to be practically useless. He went on to refer to the extraordinary attitude which the hon. member for Prieska always seemed to take up. He was in favour of disinfecting fruit trees on the coast; of regulations for nurseries, and even for bees; but he was always in opposition when it came to a matter that affected the people in his part of the country. No Government, he (Sir Thomas) argued, would administer an Act of this kind without considering the peculiar characteristics of the North-western districts. If there was harmonious co-operation between the farmers of the Union, and they would assist the Government, he was certain that the locust pest would not be such a great danger. He went on to deal with the extraordinary prejudices of people whom he had come across. There were some who would not move hand or foot in the matter, and he thought it the duty of a government of the twentieth century to resort to compulsion if it was necessary, in the interests of the people themselves. The reason why the North-western districts had been so subject to attack was because there was no co-operation among the farmers to put an end to the trouble. If, at the present juncture, the farming representatives did not come to the help of the Government they would never be able to get rid of these pests. It had been said that amendments would be considered in committee, but he hoped that no amendments, save those covering legitimate difficulties and objections, would be accepted.

said that they would all assist in fighting the locust but that it was unfair to exterminate the farmer by legislation. It was fair enough to punish the owner of a nurcery, who, for purposes of gain, imported diseases, and who had but a small area to look after, but his case could not be compared to that of a farmer who had a large piece of ground to look after, and who was in no way responsible for the fact that locusts came on to his lands. The Government did not mind paying for the extirpation of cattle disease, because that was considered a question of national importance: for the same reason they should pay for the destruction of locusts. He did not mind the obligation to report, but it was too much to expect that a farmer should neglect his farm in order to destroy swarm after swarm of locusts that might happen to pass over his lands.

said that the Transvaal deserved credit for what it had done in this connection. The people with conscientious objections were gradually disappearing. It seemed to him that the hon. member for Prieska wanted to go back, but in the Transvaal they wanted to push on. He recognised, however, that there might be hardships where poor people could not afford to fight posts single-handed. In the case of a man depending on the stale of fruit for a livelihood, the Government should compensate aim when his fruit had to he destroyed in order to save the crops of others. He supported the quarantine regulations provided for in the Bill. In the past Cape fruit had suffered a good deal from disease which was very noticeable on importation into the Transvaal, where they had been far more stringent. A Bill such as this was a necessity, but it would have to be sympathetically administered.

said he could endorse the statements of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir T. Smartt), in connection with the destruction of locusts. He remembered an occasion when he was Acting Magistrate in the district of Britstown, when he tried to induce the farmers of the district to take steps to destroy the pest. The Government were ready to help, and he called a meeting of farmers. The meeting was attended by over a hundred farmers. He communicated to the meeting the intention of the Government to give assistance in exterminating the Locusts, but several farmers came to him and told him that this was a plague sent by God, and that it could not possibly be fought by the farmers. Ultimately, a resolution was passed to the effect that the farmers should pray to the Lord that a strong east wind should be sent to drive the locusts into the sea on the west side, and that if it was not sent within 14 days, then they should use the Magistrate’s suggestion. He (Mr. Becker) used all his endeavours to persuade the farmers to adopt measures to destroy the locusts, but they would take no action, and the result was disastrous. It was clearly demonstrated to the people how easily they could deal with the pest, and eventually the farmers did take steps. He held that the provisions of this Bill were reasonable, and he would support the measure.

said he could not allow the attack made by the hon. member for Ladismith to pass unchallenged. One would think, judging from that hon. member’s remarks, that Britstown contained the biggest lot of remschoen farmers in the country—(laughter)—and that was very far from being the fact. He was all in favour of notice being given and assistance rendered in order to fight the locusts, not did he think it was a sin to exterminate such pests, but he did think that all this compulsory legislation would ruin the people. Clause 20 went too far. It would cost the Government three times as much as it cost private people to exterminate locusts, so that farmers could not possibly bear the expense of destruction by the authorities. Before now people had been ruined by this class of legislation, and if it was continued, no small farmer would be able to exist. The Kalahari was an enormous locust incubator, and it would not be of much use to drive the insects out of the North-western districts of the Cape. They would only come back, and what was the good of spending all that money? They should be very careful before passing compulsory Bills. (Applause.)

supported the hon. member for Prieska. Farmers were not opposed to destruction of locusts, but it was unfair to saddle the owner with the entire expense. Many of them would be ruined. Locusts were not indigenous to South Africa, but made inroads every now and then. For years they would not be seen, and then, all of a sudden, swarms would pass over for days at a stretch. He would only support the second reading on condition that the clause in question was altered in committee.

said that there might be several large swarms of voetgangers on one and the same farm, and the owner could not be expected to destroy them all He did not object to notifying the authorities provided the latter came and exterminated the insects.

said that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had spoken as if locust eggs were the size of ostrich eggs. (Laughter.) Something had to be done, and all should co-operate, but the Bill was too drastic altogether. The Government went to so much expense in connection with all sorts of pests that it could very well be expected to kill the locusts.

said it was peculiar that hon. members who were so emphatic about the necessity of destroying locusts, and who could not be got to see the difficulties, were living in districts where a locust was hardly ever seen. He was by no means opposed to locust destruction, and when people talked about conscientious objections, he always asked them what they would do if bitten by a flea? (Laughter.) If they admitted that they would kill the flea, he would ask them why they refused to kill the locusts? However, he could not possibly assent to Chapter II. In the Free State and Natal they had to deal with small occupied farms only, but in the Cape and the Transvaal a totally different condition of things prevailed. With reference to what the previous speaker had said, it had happened that ostriches had been hatched out, in spite of instructions to the labourers to report all eggs. If, then, on some farms it was impossible to check even the hatching of ostriches, how could they be held responsible for locusts? He asked the Minister what the position would be if a man’s neighbour’s locusts visited his farm; what would happen to farmers living along the border; what was the position of the Government in regard to locusts bred in the ground enclosed by railway fences?

said that the Transvaal had dome its duty, and that, if the other colonies did likewise, there would not be much danger.

welcomed the Bill, but regretted the absence of assistance to owners of orchards. Government supplied all sorts of things in connection with scab, and it should not leave fruit-farmers to fight their battles alone. A greater number of officials was required, because there was not an orchard in the country that was not infested with plagues. In his constituency there was not one official to advise the exporters of fruit. He advocated gratis distribution of the “Agricultural Journal.” He considered Chapter II. dangerous. The country was too big for the Government to expect owners to fight locusts at their own expense; the system in regard to East Coast fever had to be followed. Locusts were hatched in Central Africa. How, then, could South African farmers bear the brunt?

explained what had been done in the Transvaal, and praised its efficacy. He pointed out that owners could not always kill all the locusts on their lands, and it was unfair to throw the whole of the burden on them. In the Transvaal bushveld there were many farms where nobody lived in summer, and the distance was too great to expect the owner to examine in order to see whether there were any locusts to report. Deliberate concealment should be punished, but in special cases consideration would toe required. In committee, the Bill should be made more workable. In the Transvaal the farmere were prepared to assist the Government to the best of their ability, because they were convinced that the destruction of locusts was in their own interest.

said that hon. members seemed to be more interested in that portion of the Bill that dealt with locusts than any other, whereas locusts were what one might call a very mild trouble indeed as compared with the insect pests and cattle diseases with which the rest of the Bill dealt. He was only told the other day by a man who was a fruit grower and horticulturist how impossible it was to make that industry pay under existing conditions. Here they had peaches infested with maggots, oranges infested with scale, and so on, and produce of this kind was sold at Government depots. The market in this country, they had to remember, was for a very long time not likely to be large enough to permit of any great extension of the industry, and they would have to look to the foreign market, and there they came into contact with regulations which were going to stop the exportation of fruit from this country. Even this attempt to deal with insect pests seemed to be subject to the weakness which had been the characteristic of our legislation in regard to those matters in the mast. The word “may” was used where the word “shall” ought to toe used, thus leaving loopholes for what they had come to know now as “sympathetic administration.” He hoped that when the Bill went into committee something would be done to tighten up the provisions in regard to fruit pests. As to locusts, he did not think that this Bill, it it passed as it stood, would ever do very mulch to exterminate locusts in this country. He recognised that any attempt on the part of the Government to deal with locusts would be for the benefit of the country generally, and if the Government dealt with the question in an effective manner they would have to go in for a very much more expensive process than had been adopted hitherto. He would throw out a suggestion that if the farmers wished to see locusts exterminated the expenses of that work might be met perhaps by some tax which would be paid by the people who would benefit. He should be quite willing to support a measure for the expenses incurred in locust extermination being contributed by the people who were going to benefit.

supported the hon. member for Rustenburg, and said that the Bill would make people who were not even harassed by the locusts suffer from the methods adopted for their extermination. As a rule, labour was scarce on the farms, and owners would have to engage extra men to fight the insects, which was not fair. Clause 20 would have to be amended.

said that critics had directed themselves almost exclusively to Chapter II., more particularly to two provisions of that chapter. Wherever the Government had ground it would have to pay for the destruction of locusts.

Who will compel the Government?

said that if Government compelled the public to keep the law, public opinion would compel the Government. (Laughter.) There had been a considerable amount of misunderstanding about the expense. In the past Government had provided poison, instruments, and inspectors. That policy would be continued, so that farmers would not be put to much expense, not would the Government harshly compel destruction in all circumstances. The Bill being a permissive one, as far as the Government was concerned, circumstances would be taken into consideration In the North-western districts a different policy would be followed from that to be adopted in small districts, where people could easily co-operate. It would only be necessary to poison such voetgangers as were hatched on a man’s own ground. It was said that this was a far more difficult proceeding in some parts than it was in others, but the expense was trifling in any case. Destroying the eggs was a different thing, but the hatching was such a slow process that a farmer could easily take steps after having reported the laying of the eggs. On large farms the owners would have to do the best they could. No Government would attempt to compel them to do more. He trusted they would not weaken the Bill too much, because he had not made it too stringent as it was, and in any case there were ways and means of meeting special circumstances.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage on Monday.